It appears the far left has its panties in a wad over the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act which allows the United States military to detain suspects indefinitely and without charge or trial.
Even American citizens?
YES EVEN AMERICAN CITIZENS!

What is so odd about this group of PROGRESSIVES that is headed up by Chris Hedges, Noam Chomsky, Daniel Ellsberg, Birgitta Jonsdottir and Jennifer Bolen, they are NORMALLY ALIGNED HOOK LINE AND SINKER with the Marxist ideology of Barack Obama.

Apparently with his latest folly (the implementation of NDAA) Obama has somehow threatened them personally enough to make them scream uncle.

Interesting how when that bombshell hits your own back yard it spurs one into action.

So this group (REVOLUTION TRUTH) is suing the United States Government to stop the implementation of the NDAA.

Well for a change GOOD FOR THEM!

Here is the story reported by Naomi Wolf
of the guardian.co.uk,
Thursday 17 May 2012 13.19 EDT

On Wednesday 16 May, at about 4pm, the republic of the United States of America was drawn back – at least for now – from a precipice that would have plunged our country into moral darkness. One brave and principled newly-appointed judge ruled against a law that would have brought the legal powers of the authorities of Guantánamo home to our own courthouses, streets and backyards.

US district judge Katherine Forrest, in New York City’s eastern district, found that section 1021 – the key section of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) – which had been rushed into law amid secrecy and in haste on New Year’s Eve 2011, bestowing on any president the power to detain US citizens indefinitely, without charge or trial, “facially unconstitutional”. Forrest concluded that the law does indeed have, as the journalists and peaceful activists who brought the lawsuit against the president and Leon Panetta have argued, a “chilling impact on first amendment rights”. Her ruling enjoins that section of the NDAA from becoming law.

In her written opinion, the judge noted that she had been persuaded by what the lead plaintiffs – who include Pulitzer prize-winner Chris Hedges of the Nation Institute, editor Jennifer Bolen of RevolutionTruth, Noam Chomsky, Daniel Ellsberg, co-founder of Occupy London Kai Wargalla, Days of Rage editor Alexa O’Brien, and the Icelandic parliamentarian and WikiLeaks activist Birgitta Jónsdóttir – had argued. In their testimonies (in court and by affidavit), these plaintiffs compiled a persuasive case that they had “standing” to sue because it was reasonable for them to worry that they could conceivably could be detained indefinitely under the section 1021 law because their work requires them to have contact with sources the US government might assert were “terrorists” or “associated forces” of al-Qaida.

The key claim made by the plaintiffs – of which Judge Forrest was persuaded – was that the language in section 1021 is so vague that it could sweep up anyone. The law fails to define or specify what “associated forces” or the concept of “substantial support” actually mean.

I attended the hearing as a journalist supporting the plaintiffs, providing by affidavit examples from my own experience of how the NDAA’s section 1021 had already affected my reporting. (Princeton professor Dr Cornel West and I are also standing by to become plaintiffs, if called upon, in the next round.) I was also there to read in court Birgitta Jónsdóttir’s disturbing testimony: she had been advised by her own government not to attend the hearing in person because the US government would not give Iceland a written assurance that it would not detain her under the NDAA if she did so. US federal agents have already confiscated her Twitter account and personal bank records.

The back-and-forth between Judge Forrest and Obama administration’s lawyers that goes to the heart of the judge’s ruling was stunning to behold. Forrest asked repeatedly, in a variety of different ways, for the government attorneys to give her some, any assurance that the wording of section 1021 could not be used to arrest and detain people like the plaintiffs. Finally she asked for assurance that it could not be used to sweep up a hypothetical peaceful best-selling nonfiction writer who had written a hypothetical book criticizing US foreign policy, along lines theater the Taliban might agree with. Again and again (the transcript from my notes is here), the two lawyers said directly that they could not, or would not, give her those assurances. In other words, this back-and-forth confirmed what people such as Glenn Greenwald, the Bill of Rights Defense Committee, the ACLU and others have been shouting about since January: the section was knowingly written in order to give the president these powers; and his lawyers were sent into that courtroom precisely to defeat the effort to challenge them. Forrest concluded:

“At the hearing on this motion, the government was unwilling or unable to state that these plaintiffs would not be subject to indefinite detention under [section] 1021. Plaintiffs are therefore at risk of detention, of losing their liberty, potentially for many years.”

The government’s assertions become even more hellishly farcical. Forrest further observed:

“An individual could run the risk of substantially supporting or directly supporting an associated force without even being aware that he or she was doing so. In the face of what could be indeterminate military detention, due process requires more.”

This upholding of the US constitution and the rule of law is a triumphant moment, but a fragile one: Judge Forrest has asked Congress to clarify the language protecting America’s right to trial and the first amendment’s protections on speech and assembly. And now, Thursday, Representatives Adam Smith (Democrat, Washington) and Justin Amash (Republican, Michigan) have presented an amendment to Congress an amendment that does just that. Those who vote against it therefore will be voting clearly, and without any ambiguity, for stripping Americans of their constitutional rights and reducing them to the same potential status as “enemy combatants” and Guantánamo prisoners. The House thus votes for or against the power handed to the executive by the NDAA to hold any of us, anywhere, forever, for no reason. There can be no hiding from this; the lawyers defending the administration’s position made that perfectly clear.

What truly disturbed me in that courtroom was the terrible fragility of all the checks to power that are supposed to be in place to protect us against such assaults on democracy. Many senators, including my own, Chuck Schumer, had sent out letters to their own worried constituents flat-out denying our fears about what section 1021 does. No major news media organizations attended the original hearing (except Paul Harris of the Guardian and Observer). The trial and the NDAA itself have been so inadequately reported by mainstream outlets that I keep running into senior editors and lawyers who have never heard of it. I recently cornered one southern Democratic senator at an event and asked him why he had voted to pass the NDAA. He asked what my objection was.

“It allows the president to detain Americans without charge or trial,” I pointed out. His aides had assured him this was not the case, he replied. “Have you read the bill?” I asked. “It’s 1,600 pages,” he replied.

This darkness is so dangerous not least because a new Department of Homeland Security document trove, released in response to a FOIA request filed by Michael Moore and the National Lawyers’ Guild, proves in exhaustive detail that the DHS and its “fusion centers” coordinated with local police (as I argued here, to initial disbelief), the violent crackdown against Occupy last fall. You have to put these pieces of evidence together: the government cannot be trusted with powers to detain indefinitely any US citizen – even though Obama promised he would not misuse these powers – because the United States government is already coordinating a surveillance and policing war against its citizens, designed to suppress their peaceful assembly and criticism of its corporate allies.

The lawyers for the government have endless funds (our tax dollars); the plaintiffs’ lawyers all worked pro bono; the plaintiffs themselves paid their own way to make their case. Yet, by these slender means, what was essentially a coup in two paragraphs has been blocked from advancing under cover of ignorance and silence to becoming the supreme law of the land. But should our democracy hang by such a tenuous thread that it relies on the sheer luck that this case was heard by a courageous judge with a settled belief in the constitution of the United States?

Thanks Larry

CIA book review. For the historical record…

As President George W. Bush’s top speechwriter, Marc Thiessen was provided unique access to the CIA program used in interrogating top Al Qaeda terrorists, including the mastermind of the 9/11 attack, Khalid Sheikh Mohammad (KSM).

Now, his riveting new book, “Courting Disaster”, How the CIA Kept America Safe (Regnery), has been published.

Here is an excerpt from “Courting Disaster”:

“Just before dawn on March 1, 2003, two dozen heavily armed Pakistani tactical assault forces move in and surround a safe house in Rawalpindi . A few hours earlier they had received a text message from an informant inside the house. It read: “I am withKSM.”

Bursting in, they find the disheveled mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, in his bedroom. He is taken into custody. In the safe house, they find a treasure trove of computers, documents, cell phones and other valuable “pocket litter.”

Once in custody, KSM is defiant. He refuses to answer questions, informing his captors that he will tell them everything when he gets to America and sees his lawyer. But KSM is not taken to America to see a lawyer Instead he is taken to a secret CIA “black site” in an undisclosed location.

Upon arrival, KSM finds himself in the complete control of Americans. He does not know where he is, how long he will be there, or what his fate will be.

Despite his circumstances, KSM still refuses to talk. He spews contempt at his interrogators, telling them Americans are weak, lack resilience, and are unable to do what is necessary to prevent the terrorists from succeeding in their goals. He has trained to resist interrogation. When he is asked for information about future attacks, he tells his questioners scornfully: “Soon, you will know.”

It becomes clear he will not reveal the information using traditional interrogation techniques. So he undergoes a series of “enhanced interrogation techniques” approved for use only on the most high-value detainees. The techniques include waterboarding.

His resistance is described by one senior American official as “superhuman.” Eventually, however, the techniques work, and KSM becomes cooperative-for reasons that will be described later in this book.

He begins telling his CIA de-briefers about active al Qaeda plots to launch attacks against the United States and other Western targets. He holds classes for CIA officials, using a chalkboard to draw a picture of al Qaeda’s operating structure, financing, communications, and logistics. He identifies al Qaeda travel routes and safe havens, and helps intelligence officers make sense of documents and computer records seized in terrorist raids. He identifies voices in intercepted telephone calls, and helps officials understand the meaning of coded terrorist communications. He provides information that helps our intelligence community capture other high-ranking terrorists, KSM’s questioning, and that of other captured terrorists, produces more than 6,000 intelligence reports, which are shared across the intelligence community, as well as with our allies across the world.

In one of these reports, KSM describes in detail the revisions he made to his failed 1994-1995 plan known as the “Bojinka plot” to blow up a dozen airplanes carrying some 4,000 passengers over the Pacific Ocean.

Years later, an observant CIA officer notices the activities of a cell being followed by British authorities appear to match KSM’s description of his plans for aBojinka-style attack.

In an operation that involves unprecedented intelligence cooperation between our countries, British officials proceed to unravel the plot.

On the night of Aug. 9, 2006 they launch a series of raids in a northeast London suburb that lead to the arrest of two dozen al Qaeda terrorist suspects. They find a USB thumb-drive in the pocket of one of the men with security details for Heathrow airport, and information on seven trans-Atlantic flights that were scheduled to take off within hours of each other:

* United Airlines Flight 931 to San Francisco departing at 2:15 p.m.;

* Air Canada Flight 849 to Toronto departing at 3:00 p.m.;

* Air Canada Flight 865 to Montreal departing at 3:15 p.m.;

* United Airlines Flight 959 to Chicago departing at 3:40 p.m.;

* United Airlines Flight 925 to Washington departing at 4:20 p.m.;

* American Airlines Flight 131 to New York departing at 4:35 p.m.;

* American Airlines Flight 91 to Chicago departing at 4:50 p.m.

They seize bomb-making equipment and hydrogen peroxide to make liquid explosives. And they find the chilling martyrdom videos the suicide bombers had prepared.”

Today, if you asked an average person on the street what they know about the 2006 airlines plot, most would not be able to tell you much.

Few Americans are aware of the fact al Qaeda had planned to mark the fifth anniversary of 9/11 with an attack of similar scope and magnitude.

And still fewer realize the terrorists’ true intentions in this plot were uncovered thanks to critical information obtained through the interrogation of the man who conceived it: Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

This is only one of the many attacks stopped with the help of the CIA interrogation program established by the Bush Administration in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

Editor’s Note: For other foiled terrorist plots, see page 9 of “Courting Disaster.”

In addition to helping break up these specific terrorist cells and plots, CIA questioning provided our intelligence community with an unparalleled body of information about al Qaeda Until the program was temporarily suspended in 2006, intelligence officials say, well over half of the information our government had about al Qaeda-how it operates, how it moves money, how it communicates, how it recruits operatives, how it picks targets, how it plans and carries out attacks-came from the interrogation of terrorists in CIA custody.

Former CIA Director George Tenet has declared: “I know this program has saved lives. I know we’ve disrupted plots. I know this program alone is worth more than what the FBI, the Central Intelligence Agency, and the National Security Agency put together have been able to tell us.”

Former CIA Director Mike Hayden has said: “The facts of the case are that the use of these techniques against these terrorists made us safer. It really did work..”

Even Barack Obama’s Director of National Intelligence, Dennis Blair, has acknowledged: “High-value information came from interrogations in which those methods were used and provided a deeper understanding of the al Qaeda organization that was attacking this country.”

Leon Panetta, Obama’s CIA Director, has said: “Important information was gathered from these detainees. It provided information that was acted upon.”

And John Brennan, Obama’s Homeland Security Advisor, when asked in an interview if enhanced-interrogation techniques were necessary to keep America safe, replied : “Would the U.S. be handicapped if the CIA was not, in fact, able to carry out these types of detention and debriefing activities? I would say yes.”

On Jan. 22, 2009, President Obama issued Executive Order 13491, closing the CIA program and directing that, henceforth, all interrogations by U.S. personnel must follow the techniques contained in the Army Field Manual.

The morning of the announcement, Mike Hayden was still in his post as CIA Director, He called White House Counsel Greg Craig and told him bluntly: “You didn’t ask, but this is the CIA officially nonconcurring”. The president went ahead anyway, over ruling the objections of the agency.

A few months later, on April 16, 2009, President Obama ordered the release of four Justice Department memos that described in detail the techniques used to interrogate KSM and other high-value terrorists. This time, not just Hayden (who was now retired) but five CIA directors -including Obama’s own director, Leon Panetta — objected. George Tenet called to urge against the memos’ release. So did Porter Goss. So did John Deutch. Hayden says: “You had CIA directors in a continuous unbroken stream to 1995 calling saying, ‘Don’t do this.’”

In addition to objections from the men who led the agency for a collective 14 years, the President also heard objections from the agency’s covert field operatives. A few weeks earlier, Panetta had arranged for the eight top officials of the Clandestine Service to meet with the President. It was highly unusual for these clandestine officers to visit the Oval Office, and they used the opportunity to warn the President that releasing the memos would put agency operatives at risk. The President reportedly listened respectfully-and then ignored their advice.

With these actions, Barack Obama arguably did more damage to America’s national security in his first 100 days of office than any President in American history.

As if Attorney General Eric Holder did not have enough trouble of his own he has now submitted a notice of his Justice Department’s intent to file a lawsuit against Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio for alleged racial profiling.

More of the dividing the country in order to drum up the Hispanic vote for Obama’s second term run on the WhiteHouse.

Holder wants to establish a court monitor inside Arpaio’s Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office who would clear every decision he makes.

That went over about as well as a pregnant pole vaulter as Arpaio denied the profiling allegations and refuses to allow the Obama DOJ to usurp his authority.

ATTA BOY JOE!

A defiant Sheriff Joe Arpaio is preparing to tell President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder “no way”. Apparently Arpaio is standing his ground despite the threat of a federal lawsuit.

According to WND Arpaio in a telephone interview has said “Clean your own house, Eric Holder, before you come trying to clean mine,”.

Meanwhile Arpaio intends to continue his investigation of President Obama’s eligibility, his Cold Case Posse has pressed the director of the Selective Service System not to destroy any microfilm records that may yet exist of Obama’s 1980 draft registration form.

In an emergency letter Wednesday to Selective Service System Director Lawrence Romo, Mike Zullo, the lead investigator in the Cold Case Posse, asked for reassurance that the microfilm records still exist.

Arpaio’s office received official confirmation from the Selective Service System that Obama’s paper draft registration records have been destroyed after being microfilmed.

AHHH GEEE you don’t think somehow the microfilm reels containing Obama’s record will suddenly disappear do ya?

More reading on the subject if you are interested:
http://www.wnd.com/2012/05/sheriff-joe-says-court-case-is-politics/
http://www.wnd.com/2012/05/sheriff-joe-says-court-case-is-politics/
http://www.wnd.com/2012/05/sheriff-joe-demands-obama-draft-registration/

This was a comment to one of my blog posts.

Since it came up on another of my blogs a couple of months ago I decided to re post this comment here.

I have seen argument saying what is provided on these official sites does not indicate either Obama was in trouble (for real).
Were they?
You will have to research and decide for yourself.

It is simply indicative of what we think we know about this couple but really remains hidden in the shadows.

I continue to maintain if Barack Obama were white he would NEVER HAVE EVEN BEEN CONSIDERED for President with the records he has so far presented.

That is not a raciest statement is is SIMPLY FACT!

by Everett Wilkinson

This can be easily verified at https://www.iardc.org
Stands for Illinois Attorney Registration And Disciplinary Committee. It’s the official arm of lawyer discipline in Illinois; and they are very strict and mean as hell.

1. President Barack Obama, former editor of the Harvard Law Review, is no longer a “lawyer”. He surrendered his license back in 2008 in order to escape charges he lied on his bar application.

A “Voluntary Surrender” is not something where you decide “Gee, a license is not really something I need anymore, is it?” and forget to renew your license. No, a “Voluntary Surrender” is something you do when you’ve been accused of something, and you ‘voluntarily surrender” your license five seconds before the state suspends you.

2 Michelle Obama “voluntarily surrendered” her law license in 1993. after a Federal Judge gave her the choice between surrendering her license or STAND TRIAL FOR insurance FRAUD.

3. So, we have the first black President and First “Lady” – who don’t actually have licenses to practice law. Facts.
Source: http://jdlong.wordpress.com/2009/05/15/pres-barack-obama-editor-of-the-Harvard-law-review-has-no-law-license/

What do we really know about Barack Obama other than what he says about himself.

I don’t know at least Obama has a severely jaded perception of himself. At worst he registers about a -1 on the truth meter.

Either way do we actually want more of his “FORWARD”?

After reading this you will know more about Mitt Romney than you do about the current occupant of the White House, and it’s only one paragraph long.

Mitt Romney

From his Mitt Romney 2012 Site: After going to both Harvard Business School and Harvard Law School simultaneously, he passed the Michigan bar, but never worked as an attorney.

As a venture-capitalist, Romney’s first major business deal involved investing in a start-up office supply company with one store in Massachusetts that sold office supplies. That company, called Staples, now has over 2,000 stores and employs over 90,000 people. Romney, or his company Bain Capital (using what became known as the “Bain Way”) would go on to perform the same kinds of business miracles again and again, with companies like Domino’s, Sealy, Brookstone, The Weather Channel, Burger King, Warner Music Group, Dollarama, Home Depot Supply, and many others.

Got your calculators handy? Let’s recap.

Volunteer campaign worker for his dad’s gubernatorial campaign 1 year. Unpaid intern in Governor’s office 8 years. Mormon missionary in Paris 2 years. Unpaid bishop and stake president for his church 10 years. No salary as president of the Olympics 3 years. No salary as MA governor 4 years.

That’s a grand total of 28 years of unpaid service to his country, his community and his church.

Now, what can we say about the current person in the White House?

Of course Attorney General Holder is not shocked at this hole in voting practice security.

Why do you think Holder and this administration are doing their best to block voter ID?
If we have a fair vote Barack Obama loses by a landslide!

Rep. Trent Franks, Rep. Steve King and Cleta Mitchell speak about Project Veritas Voter Fraud video before House Judiciary Committee. There were reports that Nadler and Rep. Conyers were stunned and surprised by the Holder video and asked their staffers what it was about.

“It hardly inspires the public confidence that a white 20-something can obtain the ballot of the first black Attorney General.” – Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ)

“I’m shocked that the Attorney General isn’t shocked. I’m shocked that the Attorney General hasn’t offered a response to this in a meaningful way… It took James O’Keefe to get this ACORN issue brought before America.” – Rep. Steve King (R-IA)

Perhaps it pays to be older with a little experience and maturity under your belt. I suppose that gives you a head start on simply observing behavior of others.

It did not take long before I noticed and wrote about the immature behavior of Barack Obama and his wife Michelle on this blog.

It did not take them long to lap up (take the utmost advantage) the White House lifestyle.

Nuevo Reich (the newly rich) who normally are classless as well as clueless fit this couple to a tee.

Unfortunately a certain segment of society is equally as doltish and does not have a clue there is a problem with the picture.

This lavish Obama lifestyle is finally getting noticed and discussed by the main stream media.

Like everything else with THE MAIN STREAM MEDIA … they are a day late and a dollar short.

No wonder they are fast going broke and losing credibility

All in all I suppose we must be grateful all that golf and vacationing on our dime keeps him out of the White House screwing more things up.

Purpura and Moran New Jersey Obama Ballot Access Objection.

Weaving its way through the court system is another eligibility challenge for Barack Obama.

April 10, 2012, Nicholas E. Purpura and Theodore T. Moran had their Barack Obama primary ballot objection heard by Deputy Director and Administrative Law Judge, Jeff S. Masin.

Barack Obama was represented by Alexandra M. Hill of the firm of Genova, Burn & Giantomasi of Newark, New Jersey.

Ms. Hill is the latest newbie to be dragged into the mire of Barack Obama’s eligibility troubles.

Ms. Hill is based in the firm’s Newark, New Jersey office and is a member of the Commercial Real Estate, Redevelopment & Environmental Law and Corporate Political Activity Law Practice Groups.

Ms. Hill received her Juris Doctor from Georgetown University Law Center in 2011, achieving Dean’s List 2010-2011. She was a Lead Articles Editor for The Tax Lawyer and active in the Student Bar Association. She earned her Bachelor of Arts in Political Science in 2008 from Emory University.

While in law school, Ms. Hill served as a summer law clerk at Brown & Connery, LLP, extern at the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under the Law (Voting Rights) and Judicial Intern for the United States Court of Federal Claims, Office of Special Masters. From 2003-2008, Ms. Hill served as an intern for the Camden County Democrat Committee.

It looks as though the Obama defenders have put this not yet dry behind the ears youngling against some pretty seasoned legal experts. Not only seasoned lawyers but seasoned constitutional experts.

“Ms. Hill implied that the image of Obama’s birth certificate was a forgery and and followed with the absurd claim that, therefore, it cannot be used as evidence to confirm his lack of natural born citizenship status. Therefore, she argued, it is “irrelevant to his placement on the ballot”.

Ms. Hill went on to contort reasoning by implying that Obama needs only invoke his political popularity, not legal qualifications, in order to be a candidate.

The opposition argued that Mr. Obama under the Constitution has to be a “natural born Citizen.” That under New Jersey law (the state constitution, statutes, and case law), Mr. Obama must show that he is qualified for the office he wishes to occupy and that includes showing that he is a “natural born Citizen,” which includes presenting evidence of who he is, where he was born, and that he was born to two U.S. citizen parents.

I would say Ms. Hill’s ignorance of the Constitution is jaw dropping but we have seen so much of this of late one can become numb to it.

Masin as expected punted the final decision to the Secretary of State Kimberly M. Guadagno.

On 4-12-12 Guadagno issued her Final Decision in Nicholas E. Purpura and Theodore T. Moran v. Barack Obama New Jersey Primary Ballot Objection. A copy of her decision may be read here, http://www.scribd.com/puzo1/d/89431332-Final-Decision-of-SOS-in-Purpura-Moran-Ballot-Objection-4-12-12. She concludes without any explanation: “After full consideration of the record and a review of the exceptions filed, I hereby adopt the ALJ’s Initial Decision in its entirety.”

Other links to this issue:

Update on the Purpura and Moran New Jersey Obama Ballot Access Objection

http://obamaballotchallenge.com/letter-to-george-miller-from-nj-sos-office

http://www.kerchner.com/protectourliberty/protectourliberty.htm

Paul Ryan and the GOP are not the only ones getting tired of Barack Obama’s verbal tantrums.

I have to wonder just how many more of us sitting home watching the boob tube simply grab the remote and switch to Jersey Shore when Obama hits center teleprompter.

A friends old mother use to say “if you hang long enough you get use to it” … well the term certainly fits the same old tired rhetoric Barack Obama drags center stage.

Can we all spell BORING?

Here is a dialog between Paul Ryan and Laura Ingram discussing Barack Obama’s campaign tactics.

It does boil down to do we REALLY WANT 4 more years of Barack Obama?

Jay Carney the white House press secretary tells the press corps that “President Obama’s attack on the Supreme Court was misunderstood because he was speaking in “shorthand” since he is a former professor of law“.

Seriously?
He jests of course?

Anyone who believes this bull crap fell out of their crib on their head as a child and can no longer form cognitive thought on their own.

First for being a Law Professor with the Constitution as his expertise Barack Obama is MORE THAN LACKING.

It sort of makes one think MAYBE HE GOT HIS DEGREE ONLINE from some phony degree mill.

Here is the dialog that went on with the actual video below:

Henry: The president is a former constitutional law professor. One of his professors is Laurence Tribe. He now says, in his words, the president “obviously misspoke earlier this week”, quote “he didn’t say what he meant and having said that in order to avoid misleading anyone, he had to clarify it.” I thought yesterday you were saying repeatedly that he did not misspeak. What do you make of the president’s former law professor saying he did?

Carney: The premise of your question suggests that the president of the United States in the comments he made Monday, did not believe in the constitutionality of legislation, which is a preposterous premise and I know you don’t believe that.

Henry: Except this is from Laurence Tribe, who knows a lot more than you and I about constitutional law.

Carney: What I acknowledged yesterday is that speaking on Monday the president was not clearly understood by some people because he is a law professor, he spoke in shorthand.

He spoke in shorthand?
That translates to he spoke what he knew WHICH IS NOTHING!

BTW: here is what Ann Barnhardt has to say about Barack Obama his utterance about the SCOTUS and the Constitution.
Then she lends a little dialog about Michelle and her achievements.

With regards to Obama’s statement that the Supreme Court overturning a law would be “unprecedented” and “judicial activism”, let’s all remember Ockham’s Razor, shall we? The simplest explanation is almost always the correct explanation. Yes, Barry really is that stupid. His Harvard Law degree was BOUGHT AND PAID FOR the day he started classes. No performance was necessary. It was a combination of affirmative action and payola. Barack Obama (or whatever his name is) is a slack-jawed, mouth-breathing, crack-addled idiot. He is also evil and an outright antichrist. He’s not THE Antichrist, but he is AN antichrist.

Which reminds me, have I ever shown you Michelle LaVaughn Robinson (later Obama)’s Princeton senior thesis?

HERE IT IS. DON’T WORRY, STUPID ISN’T CONTAGIOUS.

You need to read this thing so you can get an appreciation of how low the affirmative action people will stoop. Read this and then understand that some poor kid who was brilliant and worked his butt off in high school DIDN’T get to go to Princeton because Michelle was given his spot. Read this and then sit in stillness for a moment and understand that this borderline-illiteracy got this woman not only a bachelor’s from Princeton, but even more amazingly got her into HARVARD LAW. The Harvard Law entry committee absolutely had this thesis pass before their eyes, guaranteed. It is written, and written POORLY, at no higher than a SEVENTH GRADE LEVEL. Nevermind the complete inanity of the topic itself: White People are Mean and Black People Will Always Be Put-upon. Especially the ones who are handed an Ivy League education that they don’t deserve. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Blah, blah, blah. Let’s just give her a pass on that. LOOK AT THE QUALITY OF THE PROSE. It is STAGGERINGLY bad. I have to go to the late Christopher Hitchens and his summation of Michelle’s thesis, because it cannot be said any better:

“To describe [the thesis] as hard to read would be a mistake; the thesis cannot be ‘read’ at all, in the strict sense of the verb. This is because it wasn’t written in any known language.”

One of the reasons the Obamas are such incredibly dangerous people, aside from their psychopathy, is the fact that they are enormously stupid people and they know this deep-down. They are desperate to maintain the con and thus are blackmailable by their handlers. Barry is, of course, doubly blackmailable because he isn’t an American citizen. Hold on. He’s triply blackmailable because he is an active homosexual. The psychological stress of all of this is why Michelle is such a miserable witch, drugging herself with designer clothes and plastic surgery, and why Barry is almost certainly dependent on drugs. Bottom line: THIS AIN’T GONNA END WELL, Y’ALL.